Journal of evaluation in clinical practice最新文献

{"title":"‘Doing the Right Things’ First and Then ‘Doing Things Right’","authors":"James A. Marcum","doi":"10.1111/jep.70079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70079","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Modern medicine is facing a crisis with respect to providing the quality of healthcare patients seek or need, especially for chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Sturmberg and Mercuri offer an insightful solution to this crisis with a shift in perspective. Invoking the management guru, Peter Drucker [<span>1</span>], they argue that the necessary shift in perspective is from ‘Doing things right’ to ‘Doing the right things’ first. In other words, medicine needs to shift to a perspective that includes the context in which the patient is embedded, from one that often ignores or excludes the patient's context and thereby fails to deliver the healthcare that the patient really requires. The shift not only has an impact on medical research but also on clinical practice. Indeed, the patient's lived context or lifeworld is important with respect to providing the healthcare patients seek or need.</p><p>Sturmberg and Mercuri also invoke the mathematician, David Sumpter [<span>2</span>], and his four ways of thinking to implement the paradigmatic shift from ‘Doing things right’ to ‘Doing the right things’ first. According to Sumpter, the first way of thinking is statistical by which the individual patient is defined in terms of the collective average. The next is interactive thinking, which explicates collective interactions simply with respect to a single linear cause and effect. The third is chaotic thinking in which the randomness and disorder of events are factored into the cognitive equations and calculations. The final is complex thinking, which, according to Sturmberg and Mercuri, is ‘more focused on introspection and self-reflection…about finding the stories which help us to better understand ourselves, as well as those around us’ (p. 9). Their goal for contemporary medicine, then, is to shift from statistical and interactive thinking that only considers the average and a linear cause and effect in terms of ‘Doing things right’ to complex and chaotic thinking that embeds the components within a multilayered and multifactorial context or story including the ethical with respect to ‘Doing the right things’ first.</p><p>Besides Sumpter, Sturmberg and colleagues [<span>3, 4</span>] have also drawn on another management guru, David Snowden, and the Cynefin framework to address multilayered and multifactorial contexts [<span>5, 6</span>], which is relevant to Sturmberg and Mercuri's current project. The Cynefin framework consists of four domains for making decisions: clear, complicated, complex and chaotic. The clear domain pertains to knowing the relevant factors involved in a decision, while the complicated domain involves several unknown factors but still a robust decision is possible. Both complex and chaotic domains contain a majority of unknown factors or unknowable factors, respectively, such that decisions are often difficult and questionable but still need to be made. The relevance for the Cynefin framework for Sturmberg and Mercuri's","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70079","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Association of Clinical Indicators of Acute Deterioration and Morbidity and Mortality in the Residential Aged Care Population: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Routinely Collected Health Data","authors":"Julie Frances Daltrey,&nbsp;Michal Kathleen Boyd,&nbsp;Vanessa Burholt,&nbsp;Heather McLeod,&nbsp;W. U. Zhenqiang,&nbsp;Katherine Bloomfield,&nbsp;Jacqualine Robinson","doi":"10.1111/jep.70068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70068","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The timely identification of acute deterioration in people living in residential aged care is critical to reducing rates of resident morbidity and mortality. However, residents often present with atypical or nonspecific presentations that make this difficult. This study aimed to quantify the strength of the relationship between the indicators acute deterioration reported in the literature and morbidity and mortality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A retrospective cohort study using routinely collected health data. A single dependant acute deterioration variable (emergency department presentation or hospital admission or death within 7 days of the last completed international resident assessment instrument long-term care facility (interRAI-LTCF) assessment) was correlated with indicators of acute deterioration reported in the literature and available in interRAI-LTCF. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated this association.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Nine variables were independently associated with acute deterioration. These were being ‘largely asleep or unresponsive’ odds ratio (OR): 7.95, 95% CI: 4.72–13.39, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, ‘easily distracted’ (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.28–2.49, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), eating ‘one or fewer meals a day’ (OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.67–2.73, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), reduced activities of daily living (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.11–3.82, <i>p</i> = 0.02) inability to complete toilet transfer (OR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.24–3.03, <i>p</i> = 0.004), ‘dyspnoea; at rest’ (OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.32–2.49, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), ‘two or more falls in 30 days’ (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.15–2.03, <i>p</i> = 0.003), peripheral oedema (OR: 1.37, 95 CI: 1.07–1.77, <i>p</i> = 0.014) and daily pain (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.05–1.77, <i>p</i> = 0.019).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Presenting with one of nine variables made residents between 1.4 and 8 times more likely to be experiencing acute deterioration than others living in the facility. The monitoring the resident for these variables by healthcare assistants could support the timely identification of acute deterioration.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Not applicable.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70068","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluation of the Virtual Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Model for Adult Patients on Haemodialysis: A Qualitative Study","authors":"Qiumian Wang,&nbsp;Yangama Jokwiro,&nbsp;Edward Zimbudzi","doi":"10.1111/jep.70071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70071","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face multidisciplinary team meetings evolved to virtual platforms. Healthcare professionals' experiences of virtual multidisciplinary team meetings is unknown, and it is not clear whether virtual meetings are a feasible long-term alternative in the post pandemic era.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To explore the experiences and perceptions of members of the multidisciplinary team managing people with kidney disease regarding virtual meetings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Maximal variation sampling was used to ensure adequate representation by gender and professional roles. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, before being analysed by two researchers independently using the Theoretical Domains Framework. A third researcher was then referred to for resolving any disagreements.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Participants</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Members of the nephrology multidisciplinary team meeting.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Measurements</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Health professionals' experiences and perspectives of virtual multidisciplinary team meetings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of the nine participants interviewed, six were females and the majority were nurses. Most of the participants were aged 30–40 years. Three main themes emerged within the three primary domains: impact on staff and patient outcomes; limited technological skills, and opportunities for improvement. From the four intermediate domains, another four themes were captured: professional responsibility; impact on engagement; barriers to participation; and desire to provide optimal patient care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Healthcare professionals of a single centre nephrology care team reported that virtual multidisciplinary meetings overcame geographic barriers and infection control restrictions, and offered possibilities for broader inclusivity. However, strategies are needed to overcome technological issues, improve participants' skills to navigate technology, and optimize active participation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70071","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Improving Guideline Development Processes: Integrating Evidence Estimation and Decision-Analytical Frameworks","authors":"Benjamin Djulbegovic,&nbsp;Iztok Hozo,&nbsp;Ilkka Kunnamo,&nbsp;Gordon Guyatt","doi":"10.1111/jep.70051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70051","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Rationale, Aims and Objectives&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Despite using state-of-the-art methodologies like Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), current guideline development frameworks still rely heavily on panellists' &lt;i&gt;intuitive&lt;/i&gt; integration of evidence related to the benefits and harms/burdens of health interventions. This leads to the ‘black-box’ and ‘integration’ problems, highlighting the lack of transparency in guideline decision-making. Combined with humans' limited capacity to process the large volumes of information presented in Summary of Findings (SoF) tables—the primary output of systematic reviews that underpin guideline recommendations—this reliance on non-explicit processes raises concerns about the trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;SoF tables provide the best available evidence, derived from frequentist or Bayesian estimation frameworks. Decision analysis, which integrates both types of estimates but considers intervention consequences, is the only analytical approach that combines multiple outcomes (benefits, harms and costs) into a single metric to support decision-making. Such analysis seeks to identify the optimal decision by balancing harms, benefits and uncertainties. This paper leverages the PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison(s), Outcome) as a conceptual basis for deriving SoF tables. Subsequently, we propose a solution to GRADE's “black-box” and “integration” problems by matching PICO-based SoF with decision models.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;We succeeded in connecting the PICO framework to simple decision-analytical models, restricted to time frames supported by empirically verifiable evidence, to calculate which competing intervention offers the greatest benefit (net differences in expected utility; ΔEU). The single metric [ΔEU] enabled a simple, transparent and easy-to-understand assessment of the superiority of competing management strategies across multiple outcomes (considering both benefits and harms), addressing the ‘black-box’ and ‘integration’ problems. Completing a SoF-based decision model takes about 10 min. Not surprisingly, the recommendations based on ΔEU may differ from the intuitive recommendations of panels.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;We propose that incorporating the straightforward and transparent modelling into guideline panels' decision-making processes will enhance their intuitive judgements, resulting in more trustworthy recommendations. Give","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143741265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Thirty-Five Years of General Practice Payment and Administration in England","authors":"Richard A. Young","doi":"10.1111/jep.70064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70064","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Rationale</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fee-for-service payment is commonly blamed for problems in the US healthcare system, including the current and projected shortage of primary care physicians. Britain's National Health Service (NHS) general practitioner (GP) workforce has been paid mostly by capitation since the creation of the NHS, which leads many US observers to conclude that capitation will solve many primary care problems.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To compile and synthesize information about GP payment and administration from publicly-avalailable sources.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This was a compilation of 30+ years of articles I accumulated about GPs and the NHS supplemented by Google Scholar, NHS websites, and similar searches to close information gaps; as well as two trips to directly observe UK GPs care for their patients.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Thirty five years of cycles of scarce resources have impacted the GP workforce and scope of practice. There has never been a golden age of support for GPs. GPs have worked under a series of unfunded or under-funded mandates and have been tasked with responsibilities that more appropriately should have been handled by policy makers. The net result is that the scope of practice of GPs has gradually eroded. The years 2002–2009 were probably the most GP-friendly with the best population outcomes, when GPs were given additional resources and were empowered to positively affect other aspects of their local healthcare system.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The British GP experience shows that it is too easy for politicians to add more work responsibilities to physicians paid by capitation without seriously examining and supporting the GP workforce to achieve the desired goals, which has led some UK GPs to recently propose fee-for-service payment. Administering and paying for GP services through the lens of complex adaptive systems management, with adequate resources, will likely result in a more effective and sustainable GP workforce.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143717074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pregnant Women's Breast Milk and Breastfeeding Myths and Associated Factors: A Case of Refugee and Non-Refugee Women","authors":"Ayça Şolt Kırca,&nbsp;Elif Dağli,&nbsp;Seçil Hür","doi":"10.1111/jep.70059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70059","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of breast milk and breastfeeding myths during pregnancy among Turkish, Turkish–Romani, and Syrian pregnant women and compare the similarities and differences between the countries.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods and Study Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The sample of the study consisted of 330 pregnant women who presented to a hospital. Data were collected with a ‘Descriptive Information Form’ and ‘Breast Milk and Breastfeeding Myths Form’ developed by the researchers. The Breast Milk and Breastfeeding Myths Form consists of items expressing common beliefs about breast milk and breastfeeding, and each item is evaluated with one of the following three options: ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ and ‘no idea.’ The forms were applied face to face to the pregnant women who came to the outpatient clinic. The data were evaluated on the SPSS (14.0) software package, and chi-square and advanced analyses were used for the statistical analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Turkish, Turkish-Romani, and Syrian pregnant women who made up the study sample had similar socio-demographic characteristics. It was determined that there were intercultural differences in 28 out of 30 myths evaluated by Turkish, Turkish-Romani, and Syrian mothers regarding breast milk and breastfeeding.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>It was determined that Turkish pregnant women had different myths about breast milk and breastfeeding from Syrian and Turkish-Romani pregnant women. It can be said that false beliefs and attitudes about breast milk and breastfeeding are common.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70059","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143717325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interprofessional Learning and Improving at the Paediatric Ward: A Participatory Action Research Practising Safety-II Theory","authors":"Annet van Harten,&nbsp;Margot R. Ernst-Kruis,&nbsp;Theo J. H. Niessen,&nbsp;Jur J. Koksma,&nbsp;Tineke A. Abma","doi":"10.1111/jep.70061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70061","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Rationale</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In the complex setting of hospitals, professionals often lack time to improve patient safety. Safety-II theory advocates integrating safety improvement, patient participation, and interprofessional learning and proposes learning frequently from practice variability.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The aim of the research was to understand how interprofessional workplace teams can learn and improve daily from practice variability.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Participatory action research (PAR) was conducted at a Dutch educational hospital paediatric ward to improve situational awareness in bedside ward-rounds. Methods included 115 semi-structured interviews and participant observations of the interactions. The action research team consisted of a representation of all stakeholders and the first author, who introduced Safety-II concepts to reflect on their practice.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The exchange of perspectives between parents, nurses and physicians increased awareness of mutual expectations and experiences prompting individual learning. To foster collective learning at the ward, the research team introduced standards tailored to participants' concerns and stimulated everyday interactions about the ward-round. This approach facilitated daily mutual perspective taking, expectation alignment, and recognition of practice variability, thereby enhancing unit-wide learning and improvement. While aiming at increasing shared situational awareness, multiple improvements emerged simultaneously and unexpectedly including time management, professional pride and job satisfaction. However, participants also discovered that lessons learned did not automatically spread to newcomers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Everyday learning in hospital units can be enhanced through daily interprofessional interactions about expectations and supported by procedural standards. Fostering daily interactions and initiating standards that met participants' concerns required the research team to spend considerable time addressing conflicting priorities. PAR proved to be a valuable and adaptive approach for learning, improving and engaging all stakeholders in a complex setting.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70061","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143698990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Unsolicited Emails and Spam: An Unsustainable Burden for Academics","authors":"Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.1111/jep.70057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70057","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Academics, including researchers and scholars, might receive undesired/unsolicited emails, including spam. This volume might differ depending on whether they use a web-based or institutional email, since filters for each may differ. In the author's experience, most unsolicited emails have mainly been related to publishing, such as requests for submissions to lesser-known or academically suspect journals, and have become the norm. In addition, in the COVID-19 pandemic era (2020–2023), unsolicited emails related to the virus or the pandemic were received, as were some emails related to the Russo-Ukrainian war in 2022–2024. To gain an appreciation of the daily and monthly volumes of emails received by the author in 2018–2024, emails were stored in email folders over these 7 years on a monthly basis. A total of 130,941 unsolicited emails (<i>sensu lato</i>) were received in this 7-year period (14,514; 17,438; 15,668; 20,458; 19,845; 21,321; 21,697 in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively). The volume per month for each of these 7 years was 1613, 1938, 1741, 2273, 2205, 2369, and 2411 while the daily volume was 54, 64, 58, 75, 73, 79, and 80, respectively. Practical solutions are needed for academics to manage such unsustainable volumes of unsolicited emails. This brief assessment has limitations.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143698991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development of a Vaccine Advocacy Scale for Childhood Vaccines and Psychometric Evaluation: A Methodological Study","authors":"Deniz S. Yorulmaz Demir","doi":"10.1111/jep.70056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70056","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aim</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study developed the Vaccine Advocacy Scale for childhood vaccines for adults and evaluated its psychometric properties.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This methodological study involved 211 adults. A literature review was conducted to create the item pool of the scale, and 12 items were prepared. While evaluating the scale's psychometric properties, the researchers performed content validity, explanatory factor analysis (factor loadings of the items, eigenvalues of the sub-dimensions, and explained variance rates), confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings and common fit indices), and criterion validity (predictive validity) in the validation phase. In the predictive validity assessment, the distribution of scores on the scale was examined according to some behaviours related to vaccine advocacy. Additionally, we analysed the item-total score correlation, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and split-half test consistency in the reliability phase.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The study's calculated Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.868, and Bartlett's test of sphericity resulted in significant results (<i>X</i>² = 1724.166; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The explanatory factor analysis revealed that the items' factor loadings were between 0.451 and 0.949 and explained 58.29% of the total variance of the structure, which consisted of 12 items and two sub-dimensions. The confirmatory factor analysis found the factor loadings of the items between 0.62 and 0.85 and identified ‘common fit indices’ within acceptable ranges and close to the perfect fit values (<i>X</i>²/df, GFI, CFI, RMSEA, RMR, NFI, TLI and IFI were 1.906, 0.950, 0.952, 0.093, 0.059, 0.906, 940 and 0.953, respectively). The Cronbach's alpha value for the scale was 0.92, and the Spearman-Brown coefficient, Guttman's split-half coefficient, and split-half correlation coefficients were 0.843, 0.842 and 0.713, respectively. The study findings indicated that individuals who had talked to other parents about vaccines, recommended vaccinations, and communicated vaccine-related issues with medical professionals had significantly higher total scale scores (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.005).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Considering the study findings and evaluations, the Vaccine Advocacy Scale was a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess adults’ vaccine advocacy behaviour for childhood vaccines.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143698810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Capturing Real-World Rare Disease Patient Journeys: Are Current Methodologies Sufficient for Informed Healthcare Decisions?”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jep.70072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70072","url":null,"abstract":"<p>K. A. Cribbs, L. T. A. Blackmore, A. R. Banks, D. S. Kim, B. J. Lahue, “Capturing Real-World Rare Disease Patient Journeys: Are Current Methodologies Sufficient for Informed Healthcare Decisions?,” <i>Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice</i> 31, no. 1 (2025): e70010, doi:10.1111/jep.70010.</p><p>In the Abstract, under <b>Results</b>, the following result was incorrect, “…<i>and <b>cross-sectional (26%)</b> designs…”</i> (<i>n</i> = 26, or 84%, of studies were cross-sectional, not 26%). This should have read, “<i>and <b>cross-sectional (84%)</b> designs….”</i></p><p>In Figure 5, the word ‘perceived’ in “Self-Perceived Health Status” is spelled incorrectly. This should have read, “Self-Perceived Health Status.” A corrected version of this figure is on the following page.</p><p>We apologize for these errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70072","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143707336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}